Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment Re: Penny (Score 1, Insightful) 702

Or, you know, interpret the second amendment as written and require gun owners to be part of a well regulated militia. Which would be far more restrictive than any of the restrictions currently proposed by even the more liberal folks. But just go ahead and keep believing it says something it clearly doesn't say. It's your God given right to be delusional as well.

Comment That's Ridiculous (Score 5, Interesting) 108

You can't just take an amazing piece of expensive kit like that and essentially throw it away! Oh wait - that's what we've been doing with the first stage of every launch forever until just now. Carry on then.

More seriously, congratulations, SpaceX, for taking such a big step forward for humankind.

Comment Re:Only if you Exclude Technological Limits (Score 1) 288

No, it wasn't just simpler. The heliocentric model explained the orbits more precisely. Check out Kepler.

If we were to go by the idea that elegant explanations with no predictive power were science, then I propose a "theory" which by gravity is conveyed by magic invisible elastic bands that are attached to everything in the universe. And I'll write equations and come up with rules that will make the behavior identical to what we see observed. If you find a problem, I'll just update my equations accordingly. We could do that back-and-forth forever and I can hold on to my "theory" forever.

No, to find out if my theory has any merit, we need to show some way in which looking at the world through my theory provides a better understanding, a more precise model, and not just an appealing idea. Elegant ideas can provide useful inspiration for scientific exploration, but if they don't make any testable predictions they are just dreams, no more true or false than fairies. The foundation of science, as opposed to every other system of knowledge is it's brutal testing of ideas against reality.

String theory, as far as I've read, provides no insight into the behavior of anything, and thus we simply can't tell if it's real or not. It might as well be fairies.

Comment Re:Apple Music (Score 1) 462

Those must be some amazingly limited contexts because my success rate even getting her to play songs on my phone is bad enough that my blood pressure rises every time I even think of giving it a try. No, I don't have an accent or a speech impediment. It's just not ready for primetime yet, and certainly doesn't make up for the lack of normal UI.

Comment Re:Apple Music (Score 1) 462

Indeed. For example, I can speak aloud in public like an idiot "Play Abbey Road by The Beatles" and then Siri will play Eternal Flame by The Bangles. Then I can tell her to stop and say it again more loudly and clearly, sounding even more like an idiot, only go get Winding Road by Sheryl Crow. If by chance she recognizes it on my third, full-retard repetition, it'll be the one in five times that the song doesn't actually start playing even though she got it right, a lovely new feature since iOS 9.

It's magical, I tell you.

Please bring sensible UI the fuck back.

Comment Re:Learn your business model (Score 1) 192

The financial case probably won't be found in lost sales - purchase decisions are generally made by people who don't have to use the stuff daily. If anywhere it'll be found in support load. If your company is spending significant money on support, then you can use that as part of the case. If they've done what most companies have done and turned support into a profit center, you're basically screwed. The best you can do at that point would be to appeal to fear - the idea that an outsider could build a modern competing product and eat your company's lunch. If that's a legitimate fear and they don't buy it, then start your own company and eat their lunch.

Comment Re:You're asking in the wrong place (Score 5, Insightful) 192

Just to be clear UX is not "making it look better". One of the reasons UX is given such low priority by developers is because so many think that UX is just new colors or flat/glossy design. And indeed, if that's what OP is talking about, it is a waste of time for an ERP app. But it sounds like they're talking about workflow enhancements, and that can be a big win. Most people are thrilled to get workflow enhancements. It's just that 90% of the time companies bring out UI window dressing along with workflow limitations and call it a "new improved User Experience", which it is not. Then you end up with people who actually use software to get things done complaining, and people who just play with software thinking the first group is luddites because it looks so much better.

Comment Re:And this is news? (Score 1) 262

I know this seems obvious, but this is one of the things science is for: testing what seems obvious, because sometimes what seems obvious is in fact wrong. Common sense got society to maybe the 17th century, which sucked. It took the ability to question our natural understanding of the world and test it with the scientific mindset to get beyond all that.

So yes, this is what I would have guessed. But knowing it is a different thing, and we can all say that now.

Comment Re:Exxon MADE the hard decision (Score 5, Insightful) 255

Ah yes, the old "had to do it for the money" claim. If we accept that everyone is an idiot robot that will play Russian Roulette for a dollar, sure. But the fact is that a person or organization has the power to make a decision with short-term or long-term thinking in mind, or a decision with self-interest or social awareness in mind. Yet somehow we've got to the point where we'll excuse absolutely anything as being reasonable if there was money at stake. Personally, I'd prefer we hold ourselves to a slightly higher standard, but I realize I'm shouting into the wind.

Comment Re:So? (Score 1) 172

I also found the article's use of "paradox" and "problem" to be a bit grating. We are observing something here we don't understand, and maybe that's anathema to a physicist who thinks we already understand everything (hint: we don't), but it's not that shocking to me.

However with the last two paragraphs of the article he clears things up a bit:

Whenever there’s a conflict between what our best theories predict [...] that’s an omen of scientific advance. That paradox is such a problem because it tells us that something about our present understanding is, in some way, incomplete. Is there a new law of physics? Is there a new application of the currently existing laws that we’ve missed? Are these quantities not fundamentally conserved after all? Is the information really encoded in the final state somehow? Will quantum gravity eventually make this all clear?

We hope to have the answer to this. But in the meantime, this paradox means we have a problem, and hence that we have more to learn. And for anyone curious about the scientific truths of the Universe, that’s an incredible thing: evidence that there’s still a whole lot more to be figured out.

Well okay then. It's not so much a paradox or a problem as a (not totally unexpected to me) indication that our physics theories do not yet account for everything going on in the universe. Taken out of the framework of "paradox" and "problem" that is exciting - maybe we'll tease some new information about how the universe works by researching this further. Now that's exciting. Just let's not get ahead of ourselves as being all-knowing quite yet.

Comment Re:Surge Pricing - Why The Hate? (Score 5, Insightful) 250

> having a fucking LOTTERY of who gets the only cab available.

I don't get the hate for this approach. Perhaps some education is in order. When there aren't enough resources to go around, there are different ways to perform allocation. Each method has different moral implications. For example, a lottery implies equality between all people and is best used for resources that are perceived as utilitarian or necessary. Fair market pricing implies that the more money you have, the more important you are and is best used for resources that are perceived as a luxury. Of course this can be argued about all day, but it's not shocking that some people would find fair-market pricing to be inherently unfair.

What if there isn't enough food or medicine to go around? Is a lottery the best approach? Or the fair market? Or perhaps rationing? Should a person with more money be able to redirect resources to themselves, even if it is not as important to their survival as someone who has less money? Transportation can be vital to maintaining a job or caring for kids - it can also be a luxury. I can see an argument either way.

Slashdot Top Deals

There is very little future in being right when your boss is wrong.